And I think you are right that I am part of the irony. I wouldn't mind meeting with you at least once at City Place. I am not like this in real life. I don't push my agendas on people who don't want to hear about them. Of course I do it here because you have a choice if you wish to read it or not or engage me.

It really helps moderators figure out if a topic is disintegrating because of general misbehavior versus someone in particular if the originally non-misbehaving members kept it that way. When everyone is prickly and argumentative and off-topic and personal then it's just too difficult to tell. We have neither infinite time to untie the Gordian knot, nor the wisdom of Solomon.

There used to be a comedian who presented his ideas for a better world, and one of them was to arm everyone on the highway with little rubber dart guns. Every time you see a driver doing something stupid, you fire a little dart at his car. When a state trooper sees someone driving down the highway with a bunch of darts all over his car he pulls him over for being an idiot.

Me: For ID proponents the preferred method for determining the best explanation is how well the explanation fits their theology.

traderdrew: Why does it have to be this way? Why can't we use science to filter some of evidence out?

Why don't you ask the most vocal ID proponents why this must be? They are the ones pushing this agenda. It also comes through in their insistence that accepting evolution leads to such atrocities as the Holocaust and school shootings.

Why does it have to be Christian? Why can't it be represented by Muslim or Hindu traditions?

ID is christian because it has christian creationist roots. Also, ID has to get around constitutional bans that do not exist in Hindu or Muslim countries.

In other words, the trend has been finding evidence that renders suspected supernatural activity as naturalistic explanations. Is this what you are saying? Trends are one thing but trends don't necessarily disprove the existence of something.

But you can see how this would be a problem for those who base their faith on the existence of supernatural acts. Where it applies to this topic, some people have based their faith in the idea that life had to come about through a supernatural act, not through a natural one. Therefore, science is a threat to their faith.

If this is the case, then there are two strategies. First, try to disprove the scientific theories that are an affront to your beliefs. Second, redefine science so that it encompasses your religious beliefs. This is exactly what the ID movement is all about. This is EXACTLY what the Scientific Ccreationism movement (ca. 1950's headed by Henry Morris) is all about. ID really is a dressed up version of Morris' Scientific Creationism.

Why don't you ask the most vocal ID proponents why this must be? They are the ones pushing this agenda. It also comes through in their insistence that accepting evolution leads to such atrocities as the Holocaust and school shootings.

Actually I wouldn't blame evolution for school shootings nearly as much as SSRI anti-depressant drugs.

ID is christian because it has christian creationist roots.

I think it would be more rational and more scientific to refute what they say instead of just connecting the dots.

quote:I think it would be more rational and more scientific to refute what they say instead of just connecting the dots.

Look up PRATTS. Points Refuted A Thousand Times.

Show us one ID statement that has not been refuted. You see, it gets old when they keep rehashing the same old refuted arguments.

Also, the thread is "Does Intelligent design have creationist roots?", not "what is the Most effective way to combat ID?"

Therefore, you should be presenting arguments showing us that ID does not have creationist roots. Not saying that we shouldn't be connecting them in the first place. If you want to do that,(here it comes,bet you can guess what I am going to say) START ANOTHER THREAD.

I think it would be more rational and more scientific to refute what they say instead of just connecting the dots.

If ID supporters put forth something that was rational and scientific then I would be more than happy to refute it, but they don't do this. There are no peer reviewed papers to discuss. There is no ID research to discuss. All they put forth is a long list of logical fallacies, quote mines, and false information. Not only that, but these fallacies, quote mines, and false information are the same fallacies et al. that have were used by scientific creationists before them.

Out of curiosity, would anyone here be interested in a 1-on-1, moderated debate on the history of Intelligent Design? I greatly enjoy reading all of your responses to my posts, but it is hard for me to discuss this issue with so many people at once. I am not necessarily issuing a challenge right now, but it would be nice to know if people are available.

I think I made my beliefs about the creationist roots of ID fairly clear in posts 3 and 25 of this thread. The full details of the evolution from creationism to ID show a deeper and clearer connection. I'm pressed for time at the moment, but I'll follow up with a fuller analysis, probably sometime this weekend.

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama